Iran... What will we do?

[BridgeTroll]

Interesting article... get ready folks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability
Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 11.21 EDT Article history 

Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution â€" but all options should be kept on the table."

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak

Israeli PM orders investigation into Iran leak

Kuwaiti paper says Binyamin Netanyahu believes the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet may have leaked plans for attack

Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011 09.57 EDT Article history 

Israel's prime minister has ordered an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it has been reported.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.

Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, is also said to have been persuaded to attack Netanyahu for "adventurism" and "gambling with Israel's national interest".

The paper suggested that the purpose of the leaks was to prevent an attack, which had moved from the stage of discussion to implementation. "Those who oppose the plan within the security establishment decided to leak it to the media and thwart the plan," it said.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options â€" primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage â€" have been exhausted. In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".

The Kuwait paper has a track record of running stories based on apparently high-level leaks from Israeli officials.

Even well-informed Israeli observers admit to being confused about what is going on behind the scenes.

"It seems that only Netanyahu and Barak know, and maybe even they haven't decided," commented Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected Haaretz writers. "While many people say Netanyahu and Barak are conducting sophisticated psychological warfare and don't intend to launch a military operation, top officials … are still afraid."

The idea that something significant is going on in this highly sensitive area was rekindled last week in comments by columnist Nahum Barnea, who wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth that the officials running Israel's military and intelligence services were opposed to a war with Iran.

"Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are the Siamese twins of the Iranian issue," he wrote. "A rare phenomenon is taking place here in terms of Israeli politics: a prime minister and defence minister who act as one body, with one goal, with mutual backing and repeated heaping of praise on each other… They're characterised as urging action.

"Netanyahu portrayed the equation at the beginning of his term as: [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler; if he is not stopped in time, there will be a Holocaust. There are some who describe Netanyahu's fervour on this subject as an obsession: all his life he's dreamed of being Churchill. Iran gives him the chance."

The debate in Israel was further fanned on Wednesday when Israel successfully test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.

[JeffreyS]

After Bush lied about the WMDs it makes it hard to support action under the same story.  Now it is more believable that Iran has them but I am still so skeptical.  We can't let Iran have nukes! Can we accomplish that from the air? If we do will we bring about more hatred?  Oh man, why can't Iran just join us in the 21st century?

[acme54321]

If Israel wants to attack them whatever, but we should stay out of it.   They've already done it to Iraq... they just have to go a little farther this time.

[RMHoward]

After Bush lied about the WMDs it makes it hard to support action under the same story.  Now it is more believable that Iran has them but I am still so skeptical.  We can't let Iran have nukes! Can we accomplish that from the air? If we do will we bring about more hatred?  Oh man, why can't Iran just join us in the 21st century?

Not to rehash this whole Iraq WMD thing, but.......Its a fact that Sadam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.  There is television footage of the aftermath with dead babies laying in the streets.  This was televised not only on Fox news, but all other outlets as well.  Therefore, he had WMD.  Its a fact.  You guys always conveniently forget that little tidbit.   Where they went or what happened to them is a mystery.  Bush may have gotten bad advice, but he didnt lie.

[buckethead]

Back to Iran:

THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!

THEY ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN WMD!

ARE YOU PEOPLE BLIND?!

Now for a plan of action:

First... We MUST suspend habeas corpus. Just have to do it.

Second... Within two weeks we need a full scale invasion of Iran. 

Are you with the terrorists or with us?

[BridgeTroll]

After Bush lied about the WMDs it makes it hard to support action under the same story.  Now it is more believable that Iran has them but I am still so skeptical.  We can't let Iran have nukes! Can we accomplish that from the air? If we do will we bring about more hatred?  Oh man, why can't Iran just join us in the 21st century?

Like Iraq... this is not just some mossad/cia made up rumor designed to start a war.  The evidence comes from the UN... the IAEA... and many other western intelligence agencies.  Iran even acknowledges the existence of a nuclear program... though only for "peaceful purposes".  This is the statement you should be infinitely more skeptical of.

[Dog Walker]

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.

[JeffreyS]

BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part.  I believed  our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.

Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

[BridgeTroll]

BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part.  I believed  our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.

Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

Not naive Jeffrey.  The circumstances are pretty near the same.  the UN, cia, mossad, and most western intelligence agencies thought saddam was up to no good.  I understand you believe Bush lied... which makes the Iranian issue tougher for you to face.  Something is going to happen... the question is... What?

[Captain Zissou]

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

At least he's not hiding the fact that reelection is more important to him than national security...?  This is ridiculous.  My fear is that we will wait too long to act. 

[Dog Walker]

BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part.  I believed  our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.

Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

I think we are more likely to have nuclear trouble out of Pakistan than Iran; that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is more likely than a nuclear attack from Iran on Israel.  The Pakistani intelligence services already support mass attacks inside India and Afghanistan.  The detonation of a smuggled bomb in India would result in immediate nuclear retaliation by India.

The government of Iran talks more aggressively, but the government of Pakistan does more aggressive things.

[BridgeTroll]

BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part.  I believed  our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.

Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

I think we are more likely to have nuclear trouble out of Pakistan than Iran; that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is more likely than a nuclear attack from Iran on Israel.  The Pakistani intelligence services already support mass attacks inside India and Afghanistan.  The detonation of a smuggled bomb in India would result in immediate nuclear retaliation by India.

The government of Iran talks more aggressively, but the government of Pakistan does more aggressive things.

The friction between India and Pakistan is undeniable... and both have rattled the nuclear sabre many times before.  We can probably agree that it is not a good idea to allow Iran to join that poisonous club...

[JeffreyS]

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

At least he's not hiding the fact that reelection is more important to him than national security...?  This is ridiculous.  My fear is that we will wait too long to act. 

Who is not hiding the fact?  This writers opinion? The IAEA report is not even out yet.  Obama has repeatedly  called out Iran, successfully cyber attacked and destroyed most of their fuselages.*  (My Opinion Obama OKed the attack as there is no proof who did it except it is believed only we could pull it off.)

[buckethead]

Let me be perfectly clear: 

We don't have a lot of time for jibber-jabber.
We must invade Iran Post Haste.

Were you not paying attention when we discovered that they hate us for our freedom?

We lost a lot of good Americans in 911 and we would do their memory a disservice if we let Iran go un-invaded.